Pseudoarchaeology

Pseudoarchaeology—also known as alternative archaeology, fringe

archaeology, fantastic archaeology, or cult archaeology—refers to
interpretations of the past from outside of the archaeological science
community, which reject the accepted datagathering and analytical
methods of the discipline.[1][2][3] These pseudoscientific
interpretations involve the use of artifacts, sites or materials to
construct scientifically insubstantial theories to supplement the
pseudoarchaeologists' claims. Methods include exaggeration of
Erich von Däniken (left) and Graham Hancock
evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, and fabrication of (right) are two of the most widely published
evidence.[4] proponents of pseudoarchaeology.

There is not one singular pseudoarchaeological theory, but many

different interpretations of the past that are at odds from those developed by persons who know and understand the data. Some of
these revolve around the idea that prehistoric and ancient human societies were aided in their development by intelligent
extraterrestrial life, an idea propagated by those such as Swiss author Erich von Däniken in books such as Chariots of the Gods?
(1968) and Italian author Peter Kolosimo. Others instead hold that there were human societies in the ancient period that were
significantly technologically advanced, such as Atlantis, and this idea has been propagated by figures like Graham Hancock in his
Fingerprints of the Gods(1995).

Many alternative archaeologies have been adopted by religious groups. Fringe archaeological ideas such as archaeocryptography and
pyramidology have been embraced by religions ranging from theBritish Israelites to the theosophists. Other alternative archaeologies
include those that have been adopted by members ofNew Age and contemporary pagan belief systems.

Academic archaeologists have heavily criticised pseudoarchaeology

, with one of the most vocal critics, John R. Cole, characterising it
as relying on "sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of scientific method, and internal contradictions in
their arguments."[5] The relationship between alternative and academic archaeologies has been compared to the relationship between
intelligent design theories and evolutionary biology by some archaeologists.[6]

Contents
Etymology
Characteristics
Lack of scientific method
Opposition to the archaeological establishment
Nationalist motivations
Religious motivations
Description
In history
Examples
Nationalistic pseudoarchaeology
Religiously motivated pseudoarchaeology
General pseudoarchaeology
Works of pseudoarchaeology
Legitimate archaeological sites often subject to pseudoarchaeological speculation
Academic archaeological responses
 Conferences and anthologies
Inclusive attitudes
See also
References
Footnotes
Bibliography
Academic books
Alternative archaeological books
Academic anthology articles
Academic journal articles
Popular archaeological articles
Online sites

Further reading
External links

Etymology
Various different terms have been employed to refer to these non-academic interpretations of archaeology. During the 1980s, the term
"cult archaeology" was used by figures like John R. Cole (1980)[7] and William H. Stiebing Jr. (1987).[8] In the 2000s, the term
"alternative archaeology" began to be instead applied by academics like Tim Sebastion (2001),[9] Robert J. Wallis (2003),[10]
Cornelius Holtorf (2006),[11] and Gabriel Moshenka (2008).[12] Garrett F. Fagan and Kenneth L. Feder (2006) however claimed this
term was only chosen because it "imparts a warmer, fuzzier feel" that "appeals to our higher ideals and progressive inclinations."[2]
They argued that the term "pseudoarchaeology" was far more appropriate,[2] a term also used by other prominent academic and
professional archaeologists such asColin Renfrew (2006).[13]

Other academic archaeologists have chosen to use other terms to refer to these interpretations. Glyn Daniel, the editor of Antiquity,
used the derogative "bullshit archaeology",[2] and similarly the academic William H. Stiebing Jr. noted that there were certain terms
used for pseudoarchaeology that were heard "in the privacy of professional archaeologists' homes and offices but which cannot be
mentioned in polite society."[14]

Characteristics
William H. Stiebing Jr. argued that despite their many differences, there were a set of core characteristics that almost all
pseudoarchaeological interpretations shared. He believed that because of this, pseudoarchaeology could be categorised as a "single
phenomenon." He went on to identify three core commonalities of pseudeoarchaeological theories: the unscientific nature of its
method and evidence, its history of providing "simple, compact answers to complex, difficult issues," and its tendency to present
itself as being persecuted by the archaeological establishment, accompanied by an ambivalent attitude towards the scientific ethos of
the Enlightenment.[15] This idea that there are core characteristics of pseudoarchaeologies is shared by other academics.
[16]

Lack of scientific method

Academic critics have pointed out that pseudoarchaeologists typically neglect to use the scientific method. Instead of testing the
evidence to see what hypotheses it fits, pseudoarchaeologists "press-gang" the archaeological data to fit a "favored conclusion" that is
often arrived at through hunches, intuition, or religious or nationalist dogma.[17][18] Different pseudoarchaeological groups hold a
variety of basic assumptions which are typically unscientific: the Nazi pseudoarchaeologists for instance took the cultural superiority
of the ancient Aryan race as a basic assumption, whilst Judeo-Christian fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists conceive of the Earth as
being less than 10,000 years old and Hindu fundamentalist pseudoarchaeologists believe that the Homo sapiens species is much older
[19] Despite this, many of pseudoarchaeology's proponents claim
than the 200,000 years old it has been shown to be by archaeologists.
[20][21]
that they reached their conclusions using scientific techniques and methods, even when it is demonstrable that they have not.
Academic archaeologist John R. Cole believed that most pseudoarchaeologists do not understand how scientific investigation works,
and that they instead believe it to be a "simple, catastrophic right versus wrong battle" between contesting theories.[22] It was because
of this failure to understand the scientific method, he argued, that the entire pseudoarchaeological approach to their arguments was
faulty. He went on to argue that most pseudoarchaeologists do not consider alternative explanations to that which they want to
propagate, and that their "theories" were typically just "notions", not having sufficient supporting evidence to allow them to be
[23]
considered "theories" in the scientific, academic meaning of the word.

Commonly lacking scientific evidence, pseudoarchaeologists typically use other forms of evidence to support their arguments. For
instance, they often make use of "generalized cultural comparisons," taking various artefacts and monuments from one society, and
highlighting similarities with those of another to support a conclusion that both had a common source—typically an ancient lost
civilisation like Atlantis, Mu, or an extraterrestrial influence.[15] This takes the different artefacts or monuments entirely out of their
[24]
original contexts, something which is anathema to academic archaeologists, for whom context is of the utmost importance.

Another form of evidence used by a number of pseudoarchaeologists is the interpretation of various myths as reflecting historical
events, but in doing so these myths are often taken out of their cultural contexts.[25] For instance, pseudoarchaeologist Immanuel
Velikovsky claimed that the myths of migrations and war gods in the Central American Aztec civilisation represented a cosmic
catastrophe that occurred in the 7th and 8th centuries BCE.[26] This was criticised by academic archaeologist William H. Stiebing Jr.,
who noted that such myths only developed in the 12th to the 14th centuries CE, over a millennium after Velikovsky claimed that the
[25]
events had occurred, and that the Aztec society itself had not even developed by the 7th century BCE.

Opposition to the archaeological establishment

Pseudoarchaeologists typically present themselves as being underdogs facing
[Academics] have formed a massive and
the much larger archaeological establishment.[5][6][15] They often use
global network through universities,
language which disparages academics and dismisses them as being museums, institutes, societies and
unadventurous, spending all their time in dusty libraries and refusing to foundations. And this immense
challenge the orthodoxies of the establishment lest they lose their jobs. In powerhouse and clearing-house of
knowledge has presented their dogma of
some more extreme examples, pseudoarchaeologists have accused academic
history to the general public totally
archaeologists of being members of a widespread conspiracy to hide the truth unhindered and unchallenged from the
about history from the public.[28] When academics challenge outside. ... On a more sinister note: now
pseudoarchaeologists and criticise their theories, many pseudoarchaeologists this "church of science" has formed a
network of watchdog organisations such as
see it as further evidence that their own ideas are right, and that they are
CSICOP and The Skeptical Society [sic]
.[29]
simply being suppressed by members of this academic conspiracy (to name but a few) in order to act as the
gatekeepers of the truth (as they see it),
The prominent English archaeologist Colin Renfrew admitted that the ready to come down like the proverbial ton
archaeological establishment was often "set in its ways and resistant to radical of bricks on all those whom they perceive
new ideas" but that this was not the reason why pseudoarchaeological theories as "frauds," "charlatans," and "pseudo-
were outright rejected by academics.[30] Garrett G. Fagan expanded on this,
scientists" – in short, heretics.
Pseudoarchaeologist Robert Bauval on his
noting how in the academic archaeological community, "New evidence or
views of academia (2000)[27]
arguments have to be thoroughly scrutinised to secure their validity ... and
longstanding, well-entrenched positions will take considerable effort and
particularly compelling data to overturn." Fagan noted that pseudoarchaeological theories simply do not have sufficient evidence to
[24]
back them up and allow them to be accepted by professional archaeologists.

Conversely, many pseudoarchaeologists, whilst criticising the academic archaeological establishment, also attempt to get support
from people with academic credentials and affiliations.[31] At times, they quote historical, and in most cases dead academics to back
up their arguments; for instance prominent pseudoarchaeologist Graham Hancock, in his seminal Fingerprints of the Gods (1995),
repeatedly notes that the eminent physicist Albert Einstein once commented positively on the pole shift hypothesis, a theory that has
been abandoned by the academic community but which Hancock supports.[32] As Fagan noted however, the fact that Einstein was a
physicist and not a geologist is not even mentioned by Hancock, nor is the fact that the understanding of plate tectonics (which came
[33]
to disprove earth crustal displacement), only came to light following Einstein's death.
Nationalist motivations
Pseudoarchaeology can be motivated by nationalism (cf. Nazi archaeology, using cultural superiority of the ancient Aryan race as a
basic assumption to establish the Germanic people as the descendants of the original Aryan ‘master race’) or a desire to prove a
particular religious (cf. intelligent design), pseudohistorical, political, or anthropological theory. In many cases, an a priori conclusion
is established, and fieldwork is undertaken explicitly to corroborate the theory in detail.

Archaeologists distinguish their research from pseudoarchaeology by pointing to differences in research methodology, including
recursive methods, falsifiable theories, peer review, and a generally systematic approach to collecting data. Though there is
overwhelming evidence of cultural connections informing folk traditions about the past,[34] objective analysis of folk archaeology—
in anthropological terms of their cultural contexts and the cultural needs they respond to—have been comparatively few. However, in
this vein, Robert Silverberg located the Mormon's use of Mound Builder culture within a larger cultural nexus[35] and the voyage of
illiams.[36]
Madoc and "Welsh Indians" was set in its changing and evolving sociohistorical contexts by Gwyn W

Religious motivations
Religiously motivated pseudoarchaeological theories include the young earth theory of some Judeo-Christian fundamentalists. They
argue that the Earth is 4,000-10,000 years old, with figures varying, depending on the source. Some Hindu pseudoarchaeologists
believe that the Homo sapiens species is much older than the 200,000 years it is generally believed to have existed. Archaeologist
John R. Cole refers to such beliefs as "cult archaeology" and believes them to be pseudoarchaeological. He went on to say that this
fects of religion."[22]
"pseudoarchaeology" had "many of the attributes, causes, and ef

A more specific example of religious pseudoarcheology is the claim of Ron Wyatt to have discovered Noah's ark, the graves of Noah
and his wife, the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel, and numerous other important sites. However, he has not
presented evidence sufficient to impress Bible scholars, scientists, and historians. Answers in Genesis propagates many
pseudoscientific notions as part of itscreationist ministry.[37][38]

Description
Pseudoarchaeology can be practised intentionally or unintentionally. Archaeological frauds and hoaxes are considered intentional
pseudoarchaeology. Genuine archaeological finds may be unintentionally converted to pseudoarchaeology through unscientific
interpretation. (cf. confirmation bias)

Especially in the past, but also in the present, pseudoarchaeology has been motivated by racism, especially when the basic intent was
to discount or deny the abilities of non-white peoples to make significant accomplishments in astronomy, architecture, sophisticated
technology, ancient writing, seafaring, and other accomplishments generally identified as evidence of "civilization". Racism can be
implied by attempts to attribute ancient sites and artefacts to Lost Tribes, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, or even
extraterrestrial intelligencerather than to the intelligence and ingenuity ofindigenous peoples.

Practitioners of pseudoarchaeology often rail against academic archaeologists and established scientific methods, claiming that
conventional science has overlooked critical evidence.Conspiracy theories may be invoked, in which "the Establishment" colludes in
suppressing evidence.

Countering the misleading "discoveries" of pseudoarchaeology binds academic archaeologists in a quandary, described by Cornelius
Holtorf[39] as whether to strive to disprove alternative approaches in a "crusading" approach or to concentrate on better public
understanding of the sciences involved; Holtorf suggested a third, relativist and contextualised[40] approach, in identifying the social
and cultural needs that both scientific and alternative archaeologies address and in identifying the engagement with the material
remains of the past in the present in terms of critical understanding and dialogue with "multiple pasts", such as Barbara Bender
explored for Stonehenge.[41] In presenting the quest for truths as process rather than results, Holtorf quoted Gotthold Lessing (Eine
Duplik, 1778):
 If God were to hold in his right hand all the truth and in his left the unique ever-active spur for truth, although with
the corollary to err forever, asking me to choose, I would humbly take his left and say "Father, give; for the pure truth
is for you alone!"

"Archaeological readings of the landscape enrich the experience of inhabiting or visiting a place," Holtorf asserted. "Those readings
may well be based on science but even non-scientific research contributes to enriching our landscapes."[42] The question for
opponents of folk archaeology is whether such enrichment is delusional.

Participatory "public" or "community" archaeologyoffers guided engagement.

In history
In the mid-2nd century, those exposed by Lucian's sarcastic essay "Alexander the false prophet" prepared an archaeological "find" in
Chalcedon to prepare a public for the supposed oracle they planned to establish atAbonoteichus in Paphlagonia (Pearse, 2001[43] ):

[I]n the temple of Apollo, which is the most ancient in Chalcedon, they buried bronze tablets which said that very
soon Asclepius, with his father Apollo, would move to Pontus and take up his residence at Abonoteichus. The
opportune discovery of these tablets caused this story to spread quickly to all Bithynia and Pontus, and to
Abonoteichus sooner than anywhere else.

At Glastonbury Abbey in 1291, at a time when King Edward I desired to emphasize his "Englishness", a fortunate discovery was
made: the coffin of King Arthur, unmistakably identified with an inscribed plaque. Arthur was reinterred at Glastonbury in a
magnificent ceremonial attended by the king and queen.

Examples

Nationalistic pseudoarchaeology
The assertion that the Mound Builders were a long vanished non-Native American people thought to have come
from Europe, the Middle East, or Africa.[44][45]
The Kensington Runestoneof Minnesota held to prove NordicViking primacy in discovery of the Americas.
Nazi archaeology, the Thule Society, and expeditions sent by theAhnenerbe to research the existence of a mythical
Aryan race.
The Black Egyptian hypothesis– A hypothesis rooted withinAfrocentric thought, alleging that Ancient Egypt was a
predominantly Black civilization.
The Bosnian pyramids project, which has projected that several hills in V isoko, Bosnia are ancientpyramids.
The theory by British Israelists that the Hill of Tara in Ireland contained theArk of the Covenant. They excavated the
hill in an attempt to prove the Irish were part of theLost Tribes of Israel.
Piltdown man.
Neolithic hyperdiffusion from Egypt being responsible for influencing most of the major ancient civilizations of the
world in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and particularly the ancient Native Americans. This includes Olmec
alternative origin speculations.
Jovan I. Deretić's Serbocentric claims in the ancient history of theOld World.
Romanian protochronism also uses pseudoarchaeological interpretations; for more pieces of information, see the
Tărtăria tablets, the Rohonc Codex's Daco-Romanian hypothesis, or theSinaia lead plates.
Slav Macedonian nationalistsview that ancient Macedonians were people unrelated toGreeks and that
contemporary Slav Macedonians are their cultural, historical and linguistic descendants. [46]

Religiously motivated pseudoarchaeology

Repeated claims of the discovery of Noah's Arkon Mount Ararat or neighbouring mountain ranges.
 Use of questionable artefacts such as theGrave Creek Stone, the Los Lunas Decalogue Stoneand the Michigan
relics represent proof of the presence of a pre-Columbian Semitic culture in America.
New Age assertions about Atlantis, Lemuria, and ancient root races derived from the writings of authors such as
19th-century theosophist and occultist Helena Blavatsky.
Mayanism and the 2012 phenomenon.
Denial of scientific dating techniques in favor of ayoung Earth age.

General pseudoarchaeology
Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea
The work of 19th- and early 20th-century authors such asIgnatius Donnelly, Augustus Le Plongeon, James
Churchward, and Arthur Posnansky.
The work of contemporary authors such asErich von Däniken, Barry Fell, Zecharia Sitchin, Robert Bauval, Frank
Joseph, Graham Hancock, Colin Wilson, Michael Cremo, Immanuel Velikovsky, and David Hatcher Childress.
Lost continents such as Atlantis, Mu, Kumari Kandam, or Lemuria, which are all contested by mainstream
archaeologists and historians as lacking critical physical evidence and general historical credibility
.
The ancient astronaut theory regarding Mayan rulerPacal II.
Speculation regardingpre-Columbian contactbetween Egypt and the Maya.
Speculation by paranormal researchers that an abnormal human skull promoted as thestarchild
" skull" was the
product of extraterrestrial-human breeding or extraterrestrial genetic engineering, despite DNA evidence proving that
the skull was that of an anatomically modern human infant, most likely suffering from hydrocephalus.

Works of pseudoarchaeology
Chariots of the Gods?
Fingerprints of the Gods
From Atlantis to the Sphinx

Legitimate archaeological sites often subject to pseudoarchaeological speculation

Puma Punku
Stonehenge
The Great Pyramid of Giza
The Sphinx
Etruscan inscriptions
Easter Island
Teotihuacan
Palenque
Chichen Itza
Göbekli Tepe
Zorats Karer a.k.a. Armenian Stonehenge
The Nazca Lines
The stone spheres of Costa Rica
The Chinese pyramids
The Megalithic Temples of Malta
Nan Madol

Academic archaeological responses

Pseudoarchaeological theories have come to be heavily criticised by academic and professional archaeologists. Prominent academic
archaeologist Colin Renfrew stated his opinion that it was appalling that pseudoarchaeologists treated archaeological evidence in
such a "frivolous and self-serving way", something he believed trivialised the "serious matter" of the study of human origins.[47]
Academics like John R. Cole,[5] Garrett G. Fagan and Kenneth L. Feder[2] have argued that pseudoarchaeological interpretations of
the past were based upon sensationalism, self-contradiction, fallacious logic, manufactured or misinterpreted evidence, quotes taken
out of context and incorrect information. Fagan and Feder characterised such interpretations of the past as being "anti-reason and
anti-science" with some being "hyper-nationalistic, racist and hateful".[2] In turn, many pseudoarchaeologists have dismissed
[5]
academics as being close minded and not willing to consider theories other than their own.

Many academic archaeologists have argued that the spread of alternative archaeological theories is a threat to the general public's
understanding of the past. Fagan was particularly scathing of television shows that presented pseudoarchaeological theories to the
general public, believing that they did so because of the difficulties in making academic archaeological ideas comprehensible and
interesting to the average viewer.[48] Renfrew however believed that those television executives commissioning these documentaries
knew that they were erroneous, and that they had allowed them to be made and broadcast simply in the hope of "short-term financial
gain".[30]

Fagan and Feder believed that it was not possible for academic archaeologists to successfully engage with pseudoarchaeologists,
remarking that "you cannot reason with unreason". Speaking from their own experiences, they thought that attempted dialogues just
became "slanging matches in which the expertise and motives of the critic become the main focus of attention."[6] Fagan has
maintained this idea elsewhere, remarking that ar
guing with supporters of pseudoarchaeological theories was "pointless" because they
denied logic. He noted that they included those "who openly admitted to not having read a word written by a trained Egyptologist"
."[49]
but who at the same time "were pronouncing how academic Egyptology was all wrong, even sinister

Conferences and anthologies

At the 1986 meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, its organizers, Kenneth Feder, Luanne Hudson and Francis Harrold
decided to hold a symposium to examine pseudoarchaeological beliefs from a variety of academic standpoints, including
archaeology, physical anthropology, sociology, history and psychology.[50] From this symposium, an anthology was produced,
entitled Cult Archaeology & Creationism: Understanding Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past(1987).

At the 2002 annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, a workshop was held on the topic of pseudoarchaeology. It
subsequently led to the publication of an academic anthology, Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misinterprets the
Past and Misleads the Public(2006), which was edited byGarrett G. Fagan.[49]

On 23 and 24 April 2009, TheAmerican Schools of Oriental Researchand the Duke University Center for Jewish Studies, along with
the Duke Department of Religion, the Duke Graduate Program in Religion, the Trinity College of Arts and Sciences Committee on
Faculty Research, and the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, sponsored a conference entitled "Archaeology, Politics, and the
Media," which addressed the abuse of archaeology in the Holy Land for political, religious, and ideological purposes. Emphasis was
placed on the media's reporting of sensational and politically motivated archaeological claims and the academy's responsibility in
responding to it.[51][52][53]

Inclusive attitudes
Academic archaeologist Cornelius Holtorf believed however that critics of alternative archaeologies like Fagan were "opinionated
and patronizing" towards alternative theories, and that purporting their views in such a manner was damaging to the public's
perception of archaeologists.[54] Holtorf highlighted that there were similarities between academic and alternative archaeological
interpretations, with the former taking some influence from the latter. As evidence, he highlighted archaeoastronomy, which was
once seen as a core component of fringe archaeological interpretations before being adopted by mainstream academics.[55] He also
noted that certain archaeological scholars, like William Stukeley (1687–1765), Margaret Murray (1863–1963) and Marija Gimbutas
(1921–1994) were seen as significant figures to both academic and alternative archaeologists.[55] He came to the conclusion that a
constructive dialogue should be opened up between academic and alternative archaeologists.[56] Fagan and Feder have responded to
Holtorf's views in detail, asserting that such a dialogue is no more possible than is one between evolutionary biologists and
[57]
creationists or between astronomers and astrologers: one approach is scientific, the other is anti-scientific.
In the early 1980s, Kenneth Feder conducted a survey of his archaeology students. On the 50-question survey, 10 questions had to do
with archaeology and/or pseudoscience. Some of the claims were more rational; the world is 5 billion years old, and human beings
came about through evolution. However, questions also included issues such as, King Tut’s tomb actually killed people upon
discovery, and there is solid evidence for the existence of Atlantis. As it turned out, some of the students Feder was teaching put some
stake in the pseudoscience claims. 12% actually believed people on Howard Carter’s expedition were killed by an ancient Egyptian
curse.[58]

See also
America Unearthed List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Antikythera mechanism Nationalism and archaeology
Archaeology and the Book of Mormon Out-of-place artefact
Babylonokia Pathological science
Baghdad Battery Phaistos Disc
Biblical archaeology Phantom island
Burrows Cave Pseudoarchaeology of Cornwall
Flood geology Psychic archaeology
Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pyramid inch
Pseudoscience in Archaeology The Space Gods Revealed
La Ciudad Blanca Xenoarchaeology

References

Footnotes
1. Holtorf 2005. p. 544.
2. Fagan and Feder 2006. p. 720.
3. Williams 1987.
4. Pseudoarchaeology – Atlantis to Aliens.
5. Cole 1980. p. 2.
6. Fagan and Feder 2006. p. 721.
7. Cole 1980.
8. Stiebing Jr. 1987.
9. Sebastion 2001.
10. Wallis 2003.
11. Holtorf 2005.
12. Moshenka 2008.
13. Renfrew 2006.
14. Stiebing Jr 1987. p. 1.
15. Stiebing Jr. 1987 p. 2.
16. Such as Cole 1980. p. 5.
17. Fagan and Feder 2006. p. 721.
18. Fagan 2006b. p. 27.
19. Fagan 2006b. p. 28.
20. Fagan and Feder 2006. pp. 721–28.
21. Harrold and Eve 1987. p. x.
22. Cole 1980. p. 3.
23. Cole 1980. pp. 5–6.
24. Fagan 2006b. p. 26.
25. Stiebing Jr. 1987 p. 3.
26. Velikovsky 1950. pp. 253–54, 269.
27. Quoted in Fagan 2006b. p. 32.
28. Fagan 2006b. pp. 31–32.
29. Fagan 2006b. p. 32.
30. Renfrew 2006. p. xii.
31. Fagan 2006b. p. 33.
32. Hancock 1995. pp. 9–11, 468, 471.
33. Fagan 2006b. p. 34.
34. D. Lowenthal (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge University Press.
35. Silverberg, Robert (1968). Moundbuilders of Ancient America. Greenwich: New York Graphics Society.
36. Williams, Gwyn A. (1987). Madoc : The Making of a Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Ohehir, Andrew (31 August 2005)."Archaeology from the dark side"(https://www.salon.com/2005/08/31/archaeolog
y/). Salon.
38. Trollinger, Susan L.; Trollinger, Jr., William Vance (2017). "Chapter 31:The Bible and Creationism"(https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=23o7DwAAQBAJ&pg=P A223). In Gutjahr, Paul. The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America.
Oxford University Press. pp. 223–225.ISBN 9780190258856.
39. Holtorf, Cornelius (December 2005). "Beyond Crusades: How (Not) to Engage with Alternative Archaeologies".
World Archaeology. 37 (4): 544–551. doi:10.1080/00438240500395813(https://doi.org/10.1080%2F0043824050039
5813)Debates in "World Archaeology"
40. "We might want to remind ourselves of the truism that every past is the construct of a particular present-day context"
(p. 548.
41. Bender, Stonehenge, vol. 1 Making Space (Materializing Culture), 1998.
42. Holtorf 2005:548.
43. Translated and notes by A.M. Harmon, 1936,Published in Loeb Classical Library, 9 volumes, Greek texts and facing
English translation: Harvard University Press. This extract transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2001.
44. Silverberg, Robert (1970). "The Making of the Myth".The Moundbuilders. Ohio University Press. pp. 29–49. ISBN 0-
8214-0839-9.
45. Milner, George R. (2004). The Moundbuilders:Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America
. Thames and Hudson. p. 7.
ISBN 0-500-28468-7.
46. Danforth. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a rTansnational World. Princeton University Press.
47. Renfrew 2006. p. xvi.
48. Fagan 2003.
49. Fagan 2006a. p. xvii.
50. Harrold and Eve 1987. p. xi.
51. "The Duke Symposium on Archaeology , Politics, and the Media:Re-visioning the Middle East"(http://fds.duke.edu/d
b?attachment-110--0-view-790)(Press release). Duke University. April 23–24, 2009.
52. "Audio of Duke Conference on Archaeology
, Politics, and the Media"(http://asorblog.org/?p=252)(Podcast). ASOR
Blog.
53. "Center for Jewish Studies – Archaeology
, Politics, and the Media" (https://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/center-for-jewis
h-studies/id420501356#ls=1)(Podcast). Duke Center for Jewish Studies iT unesU page.
54. Holtorf 2005. p. 545.
55. Holtorf 2005. p. 547.
56. Holtorf 2005. p. 550.
57. [Fagan and Feder 2006]
58. Feder, Kenneth L. (1984). "Irrationality and Popular Archaeology.” American Antiquity Vol 49(3)

Bibliography
Academic books

Feder, Kenneth. (2010). Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology
. London:
McGraw Hill.
Wallis, Robert J. (2003).Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies and Contemporary Pagans.
London: Routledge.

Alternative archaeological books

Hancock, Graham (1995). Fingerprints of the Gods. New York: Doubleday.

Velikovsky, Immanuel (1950). Worlds in Collision. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
Von Däniken, Erich (1968). Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past
. New York: Putnam.

Academic anthology articles

Fagan, Garrett G. (2006a). "Preface".Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past
and Misleads the Public(Ed: Garrett G. Fagan). Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge. pp. xvii–xix.
Fagan, Garrett G. (2006). "Diagnosing Pseudoarchaeology".Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology
Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public(Ed: Garrett G. Fagan). Abingdon, UK and New Y
ork: Routledge.
pp. 23–46.
Feder, Kenneth (1984). "Irrationality and Popular Archaeology". American Antiquity. Society of American
Anthropology. pp. 525–541.
Flemming, Nic (2006). "The Attraction of Non-Rational Archaeological Hypotheses: The Individual and Sociological
Factors". Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public(Ed:
Garrett G. Fagan). Abingdon, UK and New Y ork: Routledge. pp. 47–70.
Harrold, Francis B. & Eve, Raymond A. (1987). "Preface".Cult Archaeology & Creationism: Understanding
Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past. Iowa: University of Iowa Press. pp. ix–xii.
Renfrew, Colin (2006). "Foreword". Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and
Misleads the Public (Ed: Garrett G. Fagan). Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge. pp. xii–xvi.
Schadla-Hall, Tim (2004). "The Comforts of Unreason: The importance and relevance of alternative archaeology".
Public Archaeology (Ed: N. Merriman). London: Routledge Press. pp. 255–271.
Sebastion, Tim (2001). "Alternative archaeology: has it happened?".A Permeability of Boundaries?: New
Approaches to the Archaeology of Art, Religion and Folklore . Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. pp. 125–135.
Stiebing Jr.; William H. (1987). "The Nature and Dangers of Cult Archaeology".Cult Archaeology & Creationism:
Understanding Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past . Iowa: University of Iowa Press. pp. 01–10.
Williams, S. (1987). "Fantastic archaeology: What should we do about it?".
Cult Archaeology & Creationism:
Understanding Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past . Iowa: University of Iowa Press.

Academic journal articles

Cole, John R. (1980). "Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory".
Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory Vol. 3. pp. 01–33.
Fagan, Garrett G. & Feder, Kenneth L. (2006). "Crusading against straw men: an alternative view of alternative
archaeologies: response to Holtorf".World Archaeology Vol. 38(4). Abingdon, UK. pp. 718–29.
Holtorf, Cornelius (2005). "Beyond crusades: how (not) to engage with alternative archaeologies".
World
Archaeology Vol. 37(4). Abingdon, UK. pp. 544–51.
Moshenka, Gabriel (2008). "'The Bible in Stone': Pyramids, Lost Tribes and Alternative Archaeologies".Public
Archaeology Vol. 7(1). pp. 5–16.

Popular archaeological articles

 Daniel, R. (1977). "The forgotten milestones and blind alleys of the past".
Royal Anthropological Society News33.
pp. 03–06.
Fagan, Garrett G. (2003)."Seductions of Pseudoarchaeology: Far Out e
Tlevision". Archaeology Vol. 56, No. 3.

Online sites

Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Keith & Doeser, James (2009). "Bad Archaeology". Bad Archaeology. Retrieved 13 March
2010.
"Pseudoarchaeology – Atlantis to Aliens". ARConnection. 2012. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
Reece, Katherine (2001)."Hall of Ma'at: Weighing the Evidence for Alternative History". Retrieved 22 July 2017.

Further reading
Garrett G. Fagan, ed., Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the
Public (Routledge, new edition, 2006).ISBN 978-0415305938
Kenneth L. Feder, Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to The W alam Olum (Greenwood Publishing
Group, 2010). ISBN 978-0-313-37918-5
Robert Munro, Archaeology and False Antiquities(Methuen, 1905; G.W. Jacobs & Co., 1908).
Gregory, Timothy E., "Pseudoarchaeology".
Carroll, Robert Todd, "Pseudohistory". The Skeptic's Dictionary.
"The Eternals, Confusion and Terminology": An article on the popular TV seriesAncient Aliens, and the line between
Science Fiction and Science Fact.
"The Territory of Pseudoarchaeology" SFU museum of Archaeology and Ethnology .
Feder, Kenneth L., "Archaeological Institute hosts workshop session on Combating Pseudoarchaeology ". Skeptical
Inquirer, May, 2002.
Garrett G. Fagan, eds. (2006).Archaeological Fantasies. How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and
Misleads the Public. London/New York: Routledge.
West, John Anthony, "An Open Letter to the Editors of Archaeology". Archaeology, May/June 2003. [Special Section]
Zimmerman, Larry J., and Richard A. Fox, Jr ., "Fantastic Archaeology".
"Street Prophets: Pseudo-Archaeology": A journal on the use of fraud through pseudoarchaeology .
"Bad Archaeology" Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews and James Doeser provide resources for debunking the claims of
pseudoarchaeology.

External links
Alternative archaeologyat Curlie (based on DMOZ)
Archaeological/Skeptical Criticisms of popular archaeology
Criticisms of alternative geology(scroll down to Earth Crustal Displacement (Pole Shift), such aspole shifts
The Hall of Ma'at
Neohumanism.org
Bad Archaeology, common examples of pseudoarchaeology
Archaeology Fantasies, Criticisms of pseudoarchaeology
Archaeology from the dark side, an article in Salon.com
Andy White Anthropology, Criticisms of claims that 'giants' were discovered all over the United States during the 19th
Century.
Jason Colavito Blog, Criticisms of cable network television programs that promote pseudoarchaeology
Seven Warning Signs of Pseudoarchaeology

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoarchaeology&oldid=817170856

"

This page was last edited on 26 December 2017, at 17:18.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.